Cardinals kick field goal instead of going for TD, WTF!!!!

[MicroBob]

there was a thread awhile back by a 2+2'er who is better known as being an assistant coach at James Madison even though he's wheelchair confined. He linked to an article about himself on espn.com
I think it was over a year ago.
Since he plays poker and should have some understanding of EV and the math, etc I would be curious what a guy like him thinks of this.

I really believe that a pseudo-saber type movement on these kind of football decisions will appear at some point.
It's just too obvious to too many of us idiots for it not to.

But then you get bone-heads like Joe Morgan seriously believing that a guy who is in an 0-for-40 slump is now more likely to get a base-hit because "he's due" and then I absolutely know I could play blackjack with a coach or player and they would be all concerned about the last guy's decision because he doesn't want him to "take the dealer's bust-card" so sometimes I'm not so sure that actual reason and logic will prevail in all this sillyness.


I've personally known a couple of D1 head-coaches. Not especially well but I had some familiarity with their personalities and how they think.
I can imagine sitting one of them down and actually having a slim chance that he might get what I'm saying if I explained the 4th and goal type situation or the 'go for 2' when you are down by 14 and score a TD that we've discussed before.

The other one I'm pretty sure would just look at me funny and not get it at all although I still think it's possible even for him.

Unfortunately, both of these coaches that I'm thinking of are now dead so it seems likely that I'm not going to be the one to get to try.

[DesertCat]

Teams make two point conversions slightly over 50% of the time, yet somehow the Cards were 75% on this play?

[MicroBob]

2 point conversion is from the 2 and a half yard-line.
I believe the ball was inside the 1 on this play.

I don't know if they were 75%. But they definitely had to be better than a 50% 2-pt conversion rate because of just having the QB or RB dive into the pile for the score which really isn't a realistic option from 2+ yds out.

[mutigers5591]

[ QUOTE ]
2 point conversion is from the 2 and a half yard-line.
I believe the ball was inside the 1 on this play.

I don't know if they were 75%. But they definitely had to be better than a 50% 2-pt conversion rate because of just having the QB or RB dive into the pile for the score which really isn't a realistic option from 2+ yds out.

[/ QUOTE ]


honestly i bet it is better then 75% even

[MicroBob]

if it was practically an inch from the goal-line or whatever than I think it's definitely higher.
If it's just on the one or barely inside the one then close to 75% feels about right to me, maybe a tad higher.
But all this hunch and "feels" stuff is what screws up all the fans and coaches on this stuff in the first place!!

[Zutroy]

FO's o-line stats have the Cards with a 71% Power Success (7th in the NFL). Power Success is defined as "Percentage of runs on third or fourth down, two yards or less to go, that achieved a first down or touchdown. Also includes runs on first-and-goal or second-and-goal from the two-yard line or closer. This is the only statistic on this page that includes quarterbacks." I wanted to believe kicking the FG wasn't a bad decision but it's a tough position to justify.

[MacGuyV]

[ QUOTE ]
People on the Cards boards aren't even upset about this. They are upset at the poor clock management. 1:01 left with 1 timeout, and the Cards only get off 3 plays!

They get a first down, and instead of spiking it, they run another play. They gain 9 yards, but again they don't spike it, but run another play again, getting them to the 1 yard line, where they finally call a time out with 6 seconds left (even though there was a high likelihood of there being a booth review on that play). They get another play off, and it was broken up at the goal line, leading to the FG attempt.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was bad no doubt. However I'm not sure it didn't work to their advantage. I really think the 49ers were surprised that they were stupid enough to not spike the ball (who knows if the pass to the 1 would've happened after a spike?)

On a related note, most teams spike the ball too much when the down is more important than the clock...obv. losing the down was meaningless in that spot.

Also I def. think that lame results-oriented media criticism plays a part in coach's decisions.

[Phildo]

[ QUOTE ]
FO's o-line stats have the Cards with a 71% Power Success (7th in the NFL). Power Success is defined as "Percentage of runs on third or fourth down, two yards or less to go, that achieved a first down or touchdown. Also includes runs on first-and-goal or second-and-goal from the two-yard line or closer. This is the only statistic on this page that includes quarterbacks."

[/ QUOTE ]
it should also be taken into account that the niner's d-line blows

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FO's o-line stats have the Cards with a 71% Power Success (7th in the NFL). Power Success is defined as "Percentage of runs on third or fourth down, two yards or less to go, that achieved a first down or touchdown. Also includes runs on first-and-goal or second-and-goal from the two-yard line or closer. This is the only statistic on this page that includes quarterbacks."

[/ QUOTE ]
it should also be taken into account that the niner's d-line blows

[/ QUOTE ]

Power Success isn't directly applicable for this situation. In a 4th and goal from the 1, the defense has a much smaller area to defend. The Cardinals also have great receivers who are downfield threats, in a normal third or fourth down situation teams have to respect that, and can't bring their safeties up as hard. One the 1 yard line, the SF D line is also less important given they will have eight in the box.

Area to defend is why 2pt conversion ratios are basically 50%. The Cards from the 1 yard line would have been higher than 50%, but probably not as high as 71%. If someone can find NFL stats from the 1 yard line it would be much more predictive than Power Success.

So let's say the Cards were 65% to score from the 1. The way they were rolling offensively, why wouldn't they be close to 65% in over-time? The one thing Whiz has shown is an understanding of the percentages and a willingness to take risks to win games (such as going for it on 4th and 1 to take the lead in the 4th, and throwing with 6 seconds left).

He might have made a slightly -EV decision to minimize potential criticism, but I doubt he gave up significant EV.

[AngusThermopyle]

At that point the Cardinals had run 20 times for a total of 79 yards with a long of 9.